You know I'm starting to notice a pattern in some of your work on nationalism, which is that appeals national sovereignty seem to be made most often in religiously divided areas, which would be an interesting article the interaction between religion and national identity. Keep up this great work.
Another example of how the fight is fixed, the dice are loaded and the game is rigged by the anti-White student arty-farty hippy Left, is something I experienced when I was arguing with Guardianistas on the Daily Telegraph blogs until the great Bolshevik purge of 2013.
As an example, the Left argue that the White diaspora in the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, unlike the indigenous British, have no territorial rights of ownership because they stole that land from other peoples.
They then go on to claim that unlike Sweden which experienced no such waves of invasion there is no such thing as indigenous ethnic English / British identity because the peoples of these islands were diluted out of existence by Romans, Saxons, Vikings, and Normans. That the English have always been a " multicultural " mixed mongrel race with no sense of ancestral, historical, ethnic identity
They then finish of by suggesting that there is no such thing as Swedish because
" we all come out of Africa.".
From what I understand, the only European peoples who have been recognized by the Globalist elite as having indigenous identity and blood and soil rights are the Sami peoples of Northern Finland and Norway, They being fetishized as being more exotic, noble, virtuous and spritually cultivated.
One argument against early nationalism was an excessive focus on the nobles and men of letters and artisans who were quite mobile. They pointed to this as a proof that there was no national consciousness. But they always ignored the peasantry who stayed put for centuries, even in the Middle East as any genetic tests can showed, and provided the national culture that still influence even today with folk tales, folk arts, folk music that are still adopted by the upper class like the waltz.
who wants to live with you , be smug with your mom, gross disgusting retards. one only wants to shit on your dummy here.
gross tard wannabe jew yet you have lower iqs than both jews and asians. you have better yield your rights to the superior intellectuals then, or do more mental gymnastics. It must hurt if you REALLY try to think.
you idiotic pig skin shit, get fucking lost, pink retards,, no scuh thing as non white or non white love what you or with you or whatever,, fuck you pigs, like who fucking cares you self masturbatingshit, you idiots. pig skin low iq's
Great read. It could be argued that 'Roman' identity went far beyond ethnicity in an actual sense. As made clear with the many parallels that are made with America and the Roman Empire the idea of the Roman Empire and a 'Roman' people lived on through a combined effort to strove towards an empire with qualities that of it's heir. That a Germanic people even wanted the label of Roman upon their empire illustrates this quite well. White it certainly isn't a forethought in the minds of everyone in the present "western" and "Roman" being synonymous was most definitely the ideal for many a year.
You are leaving several parts of Northern Italy such as Piedmont-Savoy, the Republic of Genoa, and Tuscany - plus Milan, still, as a direct Habsburg domain - out of it... While they kept being part of the "Kindom of Italy" under the Holy Roman Empire till the end of its existance.
In fact, the Great-Duke / Prince of Piedmont-Savoy had a fixed seat at the Reichstag.
Not only the Piedmont-Savoy had a fixed seat at the Reichstag, but, Piedmont-Savoy worked and functioned inside the Empire in a triangulation of a political alliance block with Saxony and Brandenburg.
So much so that, these latter two entities, in syntony with Savoy-Piedmont, during the late '70s and the whole '80s of the XVIII century, were working very hard and stubbornly in the direction of making the Great Duke/Prince of Savoy Piedmont one of the Great Electors of the Holy Emperor... This would have granted them more power and a higher degree of political influence inside the Holy Roman Empire. They were almost there. So much so that the elevation of Savoy-Piedmont to Great Elector was being discussed by the Empire's chacellors and inside the Reichstag while the French Revolution erupted in 1789... Halting and interrupting the procedure.
Additionally, in the first part of the second half of the XVIII century, in order to sedate the unending revolt/civil war in Corsica, the Republic of Genova first thing requested help from the Empire. Why? Because the Republic was formally a feudal part of the Holy Roman Empire and the Republic's highest political entities were recognizing the Holy Emperor over themselves.
It had always been like this from the beginning of the Republic of Genoa in the X and XI centuries till its end during the last years of the XVIII century: it was always considering itself a part of the Kingdom of Italy under the Holy Roman Empire (and, therefore, recognizing the Holy Emperor as its protector and - although - distant Souvereign).
Therefore, the Holy Roman Empire was formed only by Germany, also other areas such as Northern Italy plus Tuscany, with the exclusion of Venice (and of its mainland territories), belonged to it.
So, the Holy Roman Empire was something different than purely Germany, also Northern Italy (Piedmont-Savoy, Genoa, Tuscany) - excluded Venice/Veneto - and other areas such as Czechia/Bohemia and Slovenia/Carinthia belonged to it.
Despite such thing not being often remembered... The Holy Roman Empire comprised of those territories too. Those territories belonged to it from - more or less - its beginning till its end.
Map of the Holy Roman Empire in the XVI century (but it remained more or less the same till before Westphalia in the middle of the XVII century):
Errata-Corrige: «Therefore, the Holy Roman Empire was not formed only by Germany; other areas such as Northern Italy plus Tuscany - with the exclusion of Venice - belonged to it».
By and large, Imperial Italy stretched from the French and Swiss borders to the border of the Republic of Venice and, in the south, to the border of the Papal States.
Though the Italian states were excluded from the Reichstag (besides Savoy-Piedmont), they did have representation in Reichshofrat / Imperial Aulic Court Council, the executive-judicial body of the Holy Roman Empire, which designated a special section for the Kingdom of Italy.
Therefore, the Kingdom of Italy had a kind of separated / parallel hierarchical political structure within the Empire, and it referred most directly to Imperial Aulic Court Council as the highest feudal authority of the Empire (under the Holy Emperor).
Thus, between 1559 and 1806, the Reichshofrat / Aulic Imperial Council received 140,000 cases from the Italian states.
Additionally, these Italian states, also heavily contributed to the Empire militarily, not just by sending troops to the Army of the Holy Roman Empire, but with each individual state formally going to war against the Empire's enemies all around Europe.
Another thing to note is that Italian financial contributions to the imperial treasury, especially during times of war, directly bypassed the Reichstag and other German-exclusive institutions of the Empire, so in a way the Italians supported the empire proportionally more, even though they had slightly higher autonomy than the Germans.
There was also a special Holy Roman Empire officer as a supervisor of the so called "Kingdom of Italy": as a local second in command and representative of the Emperor. From the Middle Age till the XVI century such role was that of the Imperial Vicar / Reichsvikar. While in the XVII and the XVIII centuries such role passed to the most modern and advanced istitution of Plenipotentiary / Reichskommisar who was the representative of the Holy Roman Emperor in Imperial Italy. The Plenipotentiary was firstly stationed in Milan, but then, from the time of Charles VI until 1801 it was stationed in Pisa (in Tuscany).
Anyhow, it has to be noted that, after Westphalia (1648), and with the independence of Switzerland, the "Kingdom of Italy" was reduced to a Holy Roman Empire exclave.
However, despite being an exclave and its larger political entities having large local autonomies, that area was still a component of the Holy Roman Empire. So it remained till after 1789.
The Imperial domains South of the Alps factually ended in 1796-97 due to the French revolutionary invasion. Such a loss was formalized by the Treatise of Lunéville in 1801 in which the Empire and the Holy Emperor abdicated all claims South of the Alps.
NB. Schematic overview of Imperial Italy (exclave of the Holy Roman Empire) around 1789, keep in mind, most of the small fiefdoms are not visible:
The colonial powers divided sub-Saharan Africa with straight lined artificial borders that took no account of African tribal identities and territories This led to an outbreak of conflicts as the colonial powers withdrew. During the late 60's, I noticed that the half-educated college student body hippy Marxist Left, used this as part of their endless litany of indictments against the White race for crimes against humanity.
It appears that they suddenly evolved an appreciation of blood and soil nationalism / tribalism, but only when it applies to any non-Whites. This is an example of the usual Leftist , heads you loose, tails I win, cover their arse both ways, double-speak hypocrisy
You know I'm starting to notice a pattern in some of your work on nationalism, which is that appeals national sovereignty seem to be made most often in religiously divided areas, which would be an interesting article the interaction between religion and national identity. Keep up this great work.
Liked and SHARED
Thanks!
Great Essay and thanks for providing bibliography.
Just finished the book by Reno last week in your suggested reading. Excellent.
Great collab with Nick last week.
Thank you!
Another example of how the fight is fixed, the dice are loaded and the game is rigged by the anti-White student arty-farty hippy Left, is something I experienced when I was arguing with Guardianistas on the Daily Telegraph blogs until the great Bolshevik purge of 2013.
As an example, the Left argue that the White diaspora in the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, unlike the indigenous British, have no territorial rights of ownership because they stole that land from other peoples.
They then go on to claim that unlike Sweden which experienced no such waves of invasion there is no such thing as indigenous ethnic English / British identity because the peoples of these islands were diluted out of existence by Romans, Saxons, Vikings, and Normans. That the English have always been a " multicultural " mixed mongrel race with no sense of ancestral, historical, ethnic identity
They then finish of by suggesting that there is no such thing as Swedish because
" we all come out of Africa.".
From what I understand, the only European peoples who have been recognized by the Globalist elite as having indigenous identity and blood and soil rights are the Sami peoples of Northern Finland and Norway, They being fetishized as being more exotic, noble, virtuous and spritually cultivated.
One argument against early nationalism was an excessive focus on the nobles and men of letters and artisans who were quite mobile. They pointed to this as a proof that there was no national consciousness. But they always ignored the peasantry who stayed put for centuries, even in the Middle East as any genetic tests can showed, and provided the national culture that still influence even today with folk tales, folk arts, folk music that are still adopted by the upper class like the waltz.
nah, go f yourselves,
who wants to live with you , be smug with your mom, gross disgusting retards. one only wants to shit on your dummy here.
gross tard wannabe jew yet you have lower iqs than both jews and asians. you have better yield your rights to the superior intellectuals then, or do more mental gymnastics. It must hurt if you REALLY try to think.
you idiotic pig skin shit, get fucking lost, pink retards,, no scuh thing as non white or non white love what you or with you or whatever,, fuck you pigs, like who fucking cares you self masturbatingshit, you idiots. pig skin low iq's
Great read. It could be argued that 'Roman' identity went far beyond ethnicity in an actual sense. As made clear with the many parallels that are made with America and the Roman Empire the idea of the Roman Empire and a 'Roman' people lived on through a combined effort to strove towards an empire with qualities that of it's heir. That a Germanic people even wanted the label of Roman upon their empire illustrates this quite well. White it certainly isn't a forethought in the minds of everyone in the present "western" and "Roman" being synonymous was most definitely the ideal for many a year.
You are leaving several parts of Northern Italy such as Piedmont-Savoy, the Republic of Genoa, and Tuscany - plus Milan, still, as a direct Habsburg domain - out of it... While they kept being part of the "Kindom of Italy" under the Holy Roman Empire till the end of its existance.
In fact, the Great-Duke / Prince of Piedmont-Savoy had a fixed seat at the Reichstag.
Not only the Piedmont-Savoy had a fixed seat at the Reichstag, but, Piedmont-Savoy worked and functioned inside the Empire in a triangulation of a political alliance block with Saxony and Brandenburg.
So much so that, these latter two entities, in syntony with Savoy-Piedmont, during the late '70s and the whole '80s of the XVIII century, were working very hard and stubbornly in the direction of making the Great Duke/Prince of Savoy Piedmont one of the Great Electors of the Holy Emperor... This would have granted them more power and a higher degree of political influence inside the Holy Roman Empire. They were almost there. So much so that the elevation of Savoy-Piedmont to Great Elector was being discussed by the Empire's chacellors and inside the Reichstag while the French Revolution erupted in 1789... Halting and interrupting the procedure.
Additionally, in the first part of the second half of the XVIII century, in order to sedate the unending revolt/civil war in Corsica, the Republic of Genova first thing requested help from the Empire. Why? Because the Republic was formally a feudal part of the Holy Roman Empire and the Republic's highest political entities were recognizing the Holy Emperor over themselves.
It had always been like this from the beginning of the Republic of Genoa in the X and XI centuries till its end during the last years of the XVIII century: it was always considering itself a part of the Kingdom of Italy under the Holy Roman Empire (and, therefore, recognizing the Holy Emperor as its protector and - although - distant Souvereign).
Therefore, the Holy Roman Empire was formed only by Germany, also other areas such as Northern Italy plus Tuscany, with the exclusion of Venice (and of its mainland territories), belonged to it.
So, the Holy Roman Empire was something different than purely Germany, also Northern Italy (Piedmont-Savoy, Genoa, Tuscany) - excluded Venice/Veneto - and other areas such as Czechia/Bohemia and Slovenia/Carinthia belonged to it.
Despite such thing not being often remembered... The Holy Roman Empire comprised of those territories too. Those territories belonged to it from - more or less - its beginning till its end.
Map of the Holy Roman Empire in the XVI century (but it remained more or less the same till before Westphalia in the middle of the XVII century):
https://ibb.co/R38gvY7
Map of the Holy Roman Empire in 1789:
https://ibb.co/2gFCFZn
Errata-Corrige: «Therefore, the Holy Roman Empire was not formed only by Germany; other areas such as Northern Italy plus Tuscany - with the exclusion of Venice - belonged to it».
That's true.
By and large, Imperial Italy stretched from the French and Swiss borders to the border of the Republic of Venice and, in the south, to the border of the Papal States.
Though the Italian states were excluded from the Reichstag (besides Savoy-Piedmont), they did have representation in Reichshofrat / Imperial Aulic Court Council, the executive-judicial body of the Holy Roman Empire, which designated a special section for the Kingdom of Italy.
Therefore, the Kingdom of Italy had a kind of separated / parallel hierarchical political structure within the Empire, and it referred most directly to Imperial Aulic Court Council as the highest feudal authority of the Empire (under the Holy Emperor).
Thus, between 1559 and 1806, the Reichshofrat / Aulic Imperial Council received 140,000 cases from the Italian states.
Additionally, these Italian states, also heavily contributed to the Empire militarily, not just by sending troops to the Army of the Holy Roman Empire, but with each individual state formally going to war against the Empire's enemies all around Europe.
Another thing to note is that Italian financial contributions to the imperial treasury, especially during times of war, directly bypassed the Reichstag and other German-exclusive institutions of the Empire, so in a way the Italians supported the empire proportionally more, even though they had slightly higher autonomy than the Germans.
There was also a special Holy Roman Empire officer as a supervisor of the so called "Kingdom of Italy": as a local second in command and representative of the Emperor. From the Middle Age till the XVI century such role was that of the Imperial Vicar / Reichsvikar. While in the XVII and the XVIII centuries such role passed to the most modern and advanced istitution of Plenipotentiary / Reichskommisar who was the representative of the Holy Roman Emperor in Imperial Italy. The Plenipotentiary was firstly stationed in Milan, but then, from the time of Charles VI until 1801 it was stationed in Pisa (in Tuscany).
Anyhow, it has to be noted that, after Westphalia (1648), and with the independence of Switzerland, the "Kingdom of Italy" was reduced to a Holy Roman Empire exclave.
However, despite being an exclave and its larger political entities having large local autonomies, that area was still a component of the Holy Roman Empire. So it remained till after 1789.
The Imperial domains South of the Alps factually ended in 1796-97 due to the French revolutionary invasion. Such a loss was formalized by the Treatise of Lunéville in 1801 in which the Empire and the Holy Emperor abdicated all claims South of the Alps.
NB. Schematic overview of Imperial Italy (exclave of the Holy Roman Empire) around 1789, keep in mind, most of the small fiefdoms are not visible:
https://ibb.co/hdY1NMB
The colonial powers divided sub-Saharan Africa with straight lined artificial borders that took no account of African tribal identities and territories This led to an outbreak of conflicts as the colonial powers withdrew. During the late 60's, I noticed that the half-educated college student body hippy Marxist Left, used this as part of their endless litany of indictments against the White race for crimes against humanity.
It appears that they suddenly evolved an appreciation of blood and soil nationalism / tribalism, but only when it applies to any non-Whites. This is an example of the usual Leftist , heads you loose, tails I win, cover their arse both ways, double-speak hypocrisy
Fascinating stuff